< 8 November	10 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. This does not appear to be a good faith nomination, especially given that the nominator tried to remove valid comments. Also the nomination states that their is "a total lack of sourcing". However, the article has several sources. The nomination was malformed and did not appear in the AfD listing for today. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist school of criminology[edit]

The article has been marked as having problems with original research, POV, and a total lack of sourcing (let alone reliable sourcing) for six years without improvement. There's no evidence on the page that there is even an independent field of a "feminist school of criminology," or if such a thing does exist, that it's notable. That a very small number of academics shares related ideas a decade ago in a small number of articles, does not create a distinct school of thought or movement or notable idea -- otherwise ever academic journal article would be its own wiki page as soon as it gets a citation.

It's been up long enough. If no-one's fixed it in seven days, time to kill it.

Djcheburashka (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. Article is copiously sourced, dozens of scholarly sources document the subject. Editor needs to stop using Wikipedia for POV-pushing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - echoing Roscelese. Every criminology textbook has feminist criminology. Nonsensical to suggest it's not notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Martínez (baseball)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer (being involved in a trade doesn't grant auto-notability). Wizardman 23:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Baseball notability guidelines and fails GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 00:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete All I could find was this: [1]. But I find it hard to believe that such a highly-touted prospect doesn't have more coverage somewhere, though it would be a pain in the butt to uncover. Alex (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Bermúdez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 23:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing that suggests he even come closes to passing GNG.--Yankees10 23:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Baseball notability guidelines and fails GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There's this and this. Alex (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it's "weak" delete with only two iffy at best sources.--Yankees10 01:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to commit to a full delete. By the way you follow me around on here, I can tell you love me. I'm flattered. Alex (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Baseball notability guidelines and fails GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing anything to pass GNG.--Yankees10 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not noteworthy. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe I created this based on the ABL being in WP:BASE/N, which it was at the time, but is no longer. Sources don't establish GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll throw a keep his way. He played in the Asia Series, a notable international tournament, in 2011.[2] In my view, he passes WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:BASE/N that refers to international tournaments reads "have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team.".. The Asia Series is a club level competition featuring the champions of NPB, KBO the Chinese Leagues and the Australian Leagues.. It does NOT involve national teams, so it doesnt count. Spanneraol (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my recollection, in the fairly recent past, we've kept guys who played in the Caribbean Series, using that rationale as reason to keep. Secondly, we must remember that all the WP: stuff are 'guidelines' intended to help evaluate notability. They are not set in stone rules. As guidelines, they have some give and sway. There is some flexibility. Alex (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont recall keeping anyone on that basis.. There is a reason that national teams are more important.. Playing for the Perth Heat in the Asia Series isnt enough for this guy absent any other sourcing to meet GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let the majority speak as it will. Alex (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge WP:BASE/N also states that if a baseball subject does not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players. In this case, here :San Francisco Giants minor league players. Does this compromise suit everyone? EBY (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played in the Giants organization since 2012 and these minor league pages are for players currently playing in the organization. So no that wouldn't work.--Yankees10 07:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Seaton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Baseball notability guidelines and fails GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing anything to pass GNG.--Yankees10 23:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable subject. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:NBASEBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's this and this, but not much else. Alex (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Additon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Baseball notability guidelines and fails GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 23:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is what I could find: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Some border WP:ROUTINE, but they still include information outside the realm of 'routine'. Alex (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable minor league player....William 19:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santos Rodriguez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Baseball notability guidelines and fails GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I created it on the notion that a 40 man roster member has a decent likelihood of a MLB callup, but it didn't happen in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing much for this guy. Alex (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Health[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is true that the article needs to be edited in order to correct the advertorial tone, the company itself meets WP:GNG. Multiple mainstream news reports mentions (more than passing mention) the company, as evidenced by google search, and also searching per WP:INDAFD. The article itself has several references. --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the hospital/company is clear from the news link. The article may be tagged for improvements. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although definitely requires massive revision. Chhandama (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles on Large hospital chains are a good way of handling the subject as an alternative to articles on individual hospitals. Hospitals tend to be technically individually notable, but without there being much to say except the basic statistics. They're a little like primary schools in this regard, and in the case of commercial chains, the best merged article is on the underlying company., DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Huon per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 23:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Langley McArol[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor, promotionally written article. A Google search turned up no usable sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arat Damdin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Princess Dolgor and Arat (=Herdsman) Damdin" is the title of an opera. Neither of the two fictitous people is a composer. The article creator seems to have severely misread the relevant passage from his source. Mongolia: A Profile, Viktor Porfirevich Petrov: "Of equal interest, hoever, are operas by Mongolian composers, such as Princess Dolgor and Arat Damdin, which incorporates traditional folk melodies in its score." Latebird (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ayush on the contrary was the name of the composer who composed that opera which seems to be notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - Yes, Shirnengiin Ayuush is clearly relevant, good find. --Latebird (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert LaBoy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable basketball player. Fails WP:NHOOPS. Never played in a level above semi-pro. Contested prod. LionMans Account (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. The coverage is trivial stats, routine mention, or from sites with a relationship with LaBoy (e.g. league or team sites).—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DO YOUR RESEARCH ON ROBERT LABOY AND PAGE CLEARLY CITES SOURCES THAT SHOWS HE IS A PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYER AND HAS A EUROBASKET PROFILE WHICH SHOWS ALL INFORMATION FOR PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYERS . LABOY ALSO HAS MANY PROFESSIONAL ACCOLADES IN PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL LEAGUES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIBACHINA14 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Only problem is he's never played above semi-pro level so doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS. Very little information available on him, so doesn't meet WP:GNG.LionMans Account (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG. None of the sources in the article are independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Note he played in the other ABA, not the one that passes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable minor league basketball player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards, etc.), nor for professional basketball players per WP:NBASKETBALL (never played in a regular season game in a major pro league), and there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Molloy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple minor roles; highly promotional writing. Not worth trying to rescue, because there wouldn't be enough left. (95% of apparent ghits are for another Amy Molloy, a writer) DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bunch of unnotable roles (I knew one day one of these sad Investigation Discovery reenactment roles would be used for article spackle). A whole bunch of WP:COPYVIO role descriptions from other media which doesn't do much except show how thin the subject's career is. Nate • (chatter) 21:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purpose of article is self-publicity: not notable--Mevagiss (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The fundamental problem here is the lack of reliable sources. There are some reasonable arguments made for moving this to Yannis Smaragdakis and expanding it, but there's no consensus to do so. If anybody would like to work on that, ping me and I'll be happy to undelete and userfy the current article for you, so the edit history gets preserved. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis's Law[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

has only one primary source and a mention in a blog article ( therefore it is not academically acknowledge law) Avono♂ (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've tried to understand how much this half-serious statement is known or cited among programmers and within fields related to project management and productivity. Doing a quick search I've found that, over many years, a few web pages have cited this "law" [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Most of these posts are written by people working in the software development field, one citation/critic is by a professor. The authors of these articles comment or criticize this "law" and maybe there is enough material to expand the Wikipedia article. Overall, the statement is far from being popular as Murphy's law but the fact that it is still cited today, more than ten years after it was proposed, makes be believe that it was interesting enough to resist the passage of time. It seems to me that it is known within a small niche of professionals. LowLevel73^(talk) 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is sourced only from the primary source which provides the only citation. Self published. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself does nothing to demonstrate notability. LowLevel73 has made a good effort to help ferret out evidence of notability; I found nothing of greater import. However, the specified sources are blogs or single person web pages; such sites do not provide evidence of notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 20:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all of the references cited are self-published or are otherwise unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- There is precedent for this sort of thing: Brooks's Law is something similar - also self-published, but more fully expressed in the publication of a book. I'm erring on delete in its current form, but the work that LowLevel73 has done shows it has been important enough to create debate among some software developers.Mediavalia (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose to an article on the inventor of the law. It seems he has done a substantial body of work, and it would make more sense to have the article on him. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK. I had a go at this and followed all of LowLevel73's links to see if I could get something more meaningful, but on reflection, I think it should be deleted as it's just a hypothesis that he never himself tested and that one other programmer has shown to be orders of magnitude out. The 'doubling' element of the so-called law is therefore irrelevant. He's obviously published some stuff over quite wide areas in computing, but nothing that informs the so-called law any further. Thoughts? Mediavalia (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've found many other pages that cite the "law", but it's more of the same stuff [17] They are mainly blog posts or Reddit threads. This statement never became popular among the educational/academic field (see here) but it is sometimes cited and discussed by computer scientists and software developers. Usually it is cited in a humorous way or to mock its creator.[18] Searching for citations, I've found also an interesting (for me) blog post that lists other non-serious programming "laws", but in full honesty I can't say that this statement matches very well the Wikipedia definition of "notable", so consider my "Weak keep" a "very weak keep". Writing an article about its creator could be interesting, I'll check whether he passes the notability test for academics. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 17:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor to Yannis Smaragdakis per DGG. Smaragdakis meets WP:PROF#C1 based on h-index (est. 31), and I will volunteer to "make it so", including fleshing out at least a partial bibliography and academic history, with a redirect from this title to the biography, if a consensus so permits. I could write something from scratch, but formally doing it from this would preserve article history. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've worked in the IT industry for 16 years and I've never heard of the so-called law or its author. It does smack a bit of inherited notability by association to Moore's Law that everyone knows about. It is not a law, it's a hypothesis and one which the originator did not even test, so it's irrelevant. I still say delete.Mediavalia (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venona Mediasoft[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced article about an advertising company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please site reason for the deletion of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelbarr (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In plainer English, the nominator says this company fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies and organizations. The article does not cite reputable media sources or show nontrivial interest from such media. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a Discussion board let me tell you, its being said that its opensource but that is not the case either Let me inform you that I did not hijack the page (venona) as noted by some of the nominator, it was available Someone from the nominated group changed it to Venona mediasoft as I understand that there is a conspiracy theory thats going on as it bear the name venona what information do you want from media related sources.

since there are some legality involved I will not be sharing any more data as of now, until the company provide me permission to do so. if its your prerogative you can very well go ahead and delete the page. Thank you so much for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelbarr (talk • contribs) 06:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. There is no claim to notability in the article, and no secondary sources at all. Also written in a very promotional tone, and could potentially have been speedily deleted as G11 (unambiguous promotion) and perhaps A7 (lack of asserted importance). --bonadea contributions talk 23:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 20:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any non-advertising sources for this company. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tummyrub[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous incarnation of this article was deleted at AfD, but current existing incarnation has existed far too long to invoke CSD G4. No indication at all that this group satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Safiel (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was deleted at AfD on October 7, 2006 and recreated on October 9, 2006. Amazing how crap slips through the cracks. Safiel (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the PROD on the grounds that this subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines and that after a search I was unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. ManicSpider (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 19:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding sources which would evidence notability under GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Could even be a hoax maybe? Bazj (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McQueen family[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is surplus to requirements. The scope of the article is null. While they are an established fictional family, what is the need for a Wikipedia page as a collective when all mentioned characters in the article have their own articles which are sourced etc. This is repetitive and there is nothing unique here that cannot or already isn't covered in the articles existing separately. Also it is not broad in coverage, there is no real world aspect - this is fancruft. Rain the 1 10:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this page has issues and I've been trying to keep it accurate but it's hard to do on my own instead of trying to get the page shut down why not help me? You are saying why is there need for a page it tells people about the family history and if there isn't any point in having that page surely there's no point in having the Cunningham family or the Osbornes? Please don't do this just help me! User:Ozzykins97 User talk: Ozzykins97 08:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to answer me or ignore me? @User talk:Raintheone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ozzykins if you had checked @Raintheone:'s contributions you would see that they've not been online in nearly 2 days. They are not ignoring you they haven't seen the message. With regards to the AFD there is no point to an article that just duplicates what is covered in other articles 5 albert square (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you watch hollyoaks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing anything other than putting this article up for a deletion discussion. I have stated my stance on the matter.Rain the 1 23:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I can't do anything to stop it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have had your say and voiced your opinion, so you have done something.Rain the 1 23:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles like this have been accepted on Wikipedia. See Category:Soap opera families. --Stan2525 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:Otherstuffexists CommanderLinx (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. I know some people object to using IAR in deletion discussions, but I think it's important in a situation like this to have some common sense. Wikipedia is full of fancruft articles that by numerous formal criteria deserve to be deleted. However, getting rid of them is neither possible nor desirable. Like it or not, this sort of thing is part of Wikipedia now, and the only effect of deleting an article such as this would be to pointlessly interfere with the editors who produce this sort of material and the readers who consume it. If you were proposing forking all the articles on TV series over to a new sister project? Maybe. But randomly deleting articles on TV characters just for the sake of following the rules to the letter? No. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. This should be kept or merged into List of Hollyoaks characters. At first glance, the nomination seems to have merit. The article currently reproduces significant content from existing articles and is extremely week on references. But at least two major issues come up with regard to this AfD. First is the relationship between this article and the ones it duplicates content from. Second is whether the subject merits and article on Wikipedia. The "McQueen family" seems to be a subset of characters from Hollyoaks. Wikipedia allows for sections of an article to be split, although I'm uncertain whether the Hollyoaks article has reached a size that would make it appropriate in this instance, and it still might do so. On the second issue, a quick WP:Before check yields far more results for the McQueen family than I am able/willing to go through right now. Many of these appear to be reliable and independent sources with depth of coverage, but it is not clear if they should be considered separately applicable to the McQueen family from the show. The article should be cleaned up and otherwise improved, but not deleted. Becky Sayles (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the connection is more than accidental, its a reasonable grouping for a combination article, and provides a place for the listing of the lessn otable members who may not be worth a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Taramaschi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

wrestler with very low notability, very few bouts. references do not support his having an article, are all basically tangential. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and there's not even any mention of him on wrestling databases like cagematch and wrestlingdata. starship.paint ~ regal 04:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first glance, I thought this article was a hoax. On second glance (at the image provided), it appears the article's subject is an ancestor of the article's creator. Whatever the case, the subject fails WP:BIO ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an interesting character, unfortunately fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sankalpa Mishra (संकल्‍प मिश्र)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Technically sourced and asserts significance, but fails WP:NOTRESUME. LS1979 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Student awards don't count for WP:PROF and nothing else here looks like it does either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too soon! Student awards are very common. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails our notability guidelines at this point. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serverware Racing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor racing team that is not inherently notable, and Google reveals no available sources. QueenCake (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cybervoron (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third party coverage. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrorball Films[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Produced one set of 3 films and nothing else; this is not enough for notability as a producer. All available refs are about th efilms, not the production company. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a couple of hits on each of Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Screen International, but none of them are anywhere close to what I'd say is non-trivial coverage. If someone can suggest a valid redirection target, that would work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:COMPANY. All the sources provide us is that it might be listed as the production company in the infobox of the articles on its 3 projects or in the articles of its founders, but it lacks coverage for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Reifer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable minor league player. Previous AFD hinged on the presumed notability of his playing in the Dominican Winter League.. The guidelines have been altered since then so that no longer is an issue. Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill. Not notable one bit.--Yankees10 18:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single article of note online for this guy. Barely any ROUTINE coverage outside of transaction line notes. Alex (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National UFO Reporting Center[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Peter Davenport runs this one-person organization that simply collects hearsay reports of UFOs. Not a notable organization. No independent notice by non-ufological sources. jps (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete--Gold is Cool (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete--Gold is Cool 2 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Gold is Cool 3 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Votes struck through and accounts blocked under WP:Sockpuppet. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has something against this guy for some unknown reason. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New sources makes all the difference. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG after Jinkinson has kindly added new sources! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shook it up, added lots of sources. As the organisation Arizona law officials turned to during the Phoenix Lights incident, I'd say that's pretty good for notability on its own - but they've been in USA today more than once, and The Times, etc. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But definitely: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[1] reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been added, this now meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nom statement seems to suggest that the organization is not notable because it is small and collects hearsay reports. If an organization has received enough coverage to be notable, which does apppear to have happened here, it doesn't really matter what the organization's purpose or size is. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevin Ashley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable minor league player. This article was previously deleted at AFD and then recreated as a redirect by Alex. That should never have happened. Spanneraol (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill non-notable journeyman player. I have no idea why the re-direct after the AFD was allowed to be kept.--Yankees10 18:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage: [19], [20], with one that extends a little beyond that: [21]. He was AfDed and deleted because he was a free-agent at the time. He had since been signed and was thus again affiliated with a major league club. Alex (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this: [22] and this [23] Alex (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Anthony (pornographic actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very tenuous and questionable link to any notability. The Venus Award doesn't seem to be to an individual, but some sort of work (italicised) on the Private.com website. Anthony isn't on the List of Grabby recipients either. The only other citation (which supposedly verifies some personal background) is an online bulletin board. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited award went to a film/video about the eponymous historical figure, not to this performer; there are no other claims to notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NATIONAL CHILDREN'S FILM FESTIVAL[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title is all capital and there are no references. Or else we could copy the article and change the title. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the 120 seconds between edits, what searches did you do to establish notability? I found this article on the Times of India website in 10 seconds, which should in itself be enough to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic. Searching for this term in Google showed immediate results as seen here. TheMagikCow, as it has been done, a page can be moved so it is titlecase and not uppercase. In addition, per WP:BEFORE, you need to follow checks before resorting to WP:AFD. It was very easy to confirm that the topic is notable; please do this in the future. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as easily notable topic. And @TheMagikCow: please study WP:NRVE. Specially when so easily found, sources do not have to be IN an article for the topic to be notable. THAT's a matter for regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep definitely notable organization. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion provided in the nomination, which even says it could be copied to a new article with different title (which is reason for move, which is not what AfD is for). I went to do just that but it appears it's already been redirected. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Gattás Asfura[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Promotional piece by promotional editor for this minor researcher. Lacks coverage about him instead of by him. Has a decent number of references but they are a mainly by him. None are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage about him. Is the lead author one was reasonably well cited postgrad publication but is that enough for WP:PROF? Given the nature of the article written by a serial spammer with a penchant for copyright violation and deception and fake claims of identity I'd suggest blowing it away. Stop rewarding spam editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. Credential is flimsy. Clearly a promotional article. "Co-authored chapter 17 of the 2009 book" is one of the lamest vitae I have seen for a scientist. What is his major breakthrough achievement, award, best-selling book? None. Chhandama (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. A h-index of 13 is not enough, nor does he meet WP:PROF in other ways. -- 120.23.170.232 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 15:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Favela[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was prodded, but the prodding process got messed up. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original PROD was for Not notable. WP:BLP1E.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Another case of someone technically meeting NBOX by winning one of the many non-world titles of the WBC, but there's no significant independent coverage and a career record of 37 wins in 75 fights doesn't make a good case for notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Professional athletes are kept by consensus at WP. Having won a title would seem to pretty much seal it. Won-loss record is irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by that but just being a professional athlete does not mean the article is kept. WP:NSPORTS and in this case WP:NBOX indicate presumption. The article does not meet WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Don't know much about the boxing business, but based on my google search he doesn't meet WP:GNG and that's the prime indicator of notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found no significant independent coverage, although I did find lots of results reporting on his many fights. I also found a wide range of fight records for him, ranging from boxrec (the one Mdtemp mentioned) to this[24], which put his record at 19 wins in 58 fights. The title he won was minor. Papaursa (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The IBA world title and WBO inter-continental titles that he fought for and the WBC title that he won may not be the most prestigious titles but they are significant enough to indicate notability. --Michig (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to believe than someone who won less than half of his fights could have fought for any truly notable titles. If you can show me some significant independent coverage (not just fight announcements and results), I am more than willing to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He only lost one of his first 20 fights and then won the WBC title and lost the WBO challenge (to a fighter who had a whole load of title fights). If he'd stopped there he would have had great win to lose ratio. Lots of fighters carry on past their best and end up losing a lot of fights later in their career. Looking at their overall career and saying they're not notable because they lost half their fights makes no sense. --Michig (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of fighters pad their records with unverified fights and/or fights against human punching bags. Titles that aren't contested for several years or aren't defended (instead 2 new fighters are given a shot) do not impress me. I agree he meets WP:NBOX, but that is a presumption and not a guarantee of notability. Granted, I usually go along with the presumption, but are you saying you can't find any significant coverage of him? I didn't think I was asking for much. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he is a Mexican boxer, I would expect to find coverage in Mexican news sources and boxing publications, much of which is probably not available online. --Michig (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a BLP with no significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Eat Bulaga. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sireyna Worldwide[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pageant lacks notability, article is devoid of reliable independent sources. No indication of any significance. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Eat Bulaga as a possible search term, and because it hasn't gained notability independent of the noontime show. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above - Narutolovehinata's suggestion sounds like a good compromise that means this alternative pageant will receive SOME acknowledgement. Mabalu (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eczema. I think it's an obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weeping Eczema[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ah, is there an ICD 9 code? This is like saying "pneumonia with a fever" Weeping eczema just means it is wet. It is not an independent condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Doc. I don't think we need a medical article referenced to a 1904 book and Adele Davis, who peddled erroneous nutritional theories before her 1974 death. We already have a far better article about Eczema, based on current reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above deletion rationales. Even if properly written and sourced, this would be a content fork. -- Scray (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Agree with above. Carlos Rivas (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The reason I wrote a separate article on Weeping Eczema is it is an obsolete term that identifies a systemic disease that is distinct from a wet form of common eczema. When I did a Google Scholar search on "Weeping Eczema", the only reference I found was the 1904 book I cited. This 1904 book described this narrowly defined disease in detail. It probably has a technical term now that I do not know, that distinguishes this disease from common wet eczema. It also has a specific cause related to folate and paba metabolism. Hopefully one of you can identify this narrowly defined disease by providing the technical term. That would eliminate the need for my questionable references. Greensburger (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize it in the history section of the eczema article if you can find a modern reference that comments on it. If not probably not notable / no longer exists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aid to identifying this disease, I quote excerpts from the 1904 book by William H. Bain:

"The first stage ... is erythematous eczema..., a patchy redness with diffuse outline, always associated with more or less oedema of the superficial part of the corium. It is seen chiefly on the face, penis and scrotum, and is limited to those parts where the epidermis is very thin...

The next stage is knows as papular eczema... This early papule is an unripe vesicle, being formed by the presence of a collection of serum deep in the epidermis.

In the next stage, known as vesicular eczema, the collection of fluid has grown large enough and pushed sufficiently near the surface to be obvious to the naked eye as a vesicle.

The vesicles soon burst as a rule and being replaced by a red exuding surface known as weeping eczema or eczema madidans...

A crust forms from the dried and coagulated serum... The consistence of the skin is stiff and it appears thickened from the presence of superficial oedema...

The horny layer in this form is not produced in the normal manner, remaining too moist and not sufficiently greasy, thus constituting a stiff and brittle covering, rather than the supple, water-proof, normal surface..."

I summarize: Weeping eczena of this kind occurs chiefly in skin having very thin epidermis. The skin becomes stiff and brittle forming cracks that exude fluid.

Pubmed yields the following from J. Dermatology, linking folate deficiency to psoriasis, rather than to eczema, a distinction that perhaps was not made when Bain wrote his book:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5557509?dopt=Abstract

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4759946

Greensburger (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We certainly do not need an article for an obsolete terminology that neither has historical significance, and lacks verifiable secondary sources. This is not knowledge. Chhandama (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eczema. Appears to be an actual term health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/problems/medical/eczema2.htm. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with redirect Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Bangtan Boys. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Taehyung[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not refer to a person.References are not valid.A person is not known and A separate source that does not just refer to him.(Sitalima (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and (or) re-direct the title to Bangtan Boys. Too soon. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - asian fantastic is a fanpage and not a Authentic Site.Other sites Not mention to Kim Taehyung.All references refer to Bangtan Boys.This article is not an authentic person and must be removed.(سعيدس (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Haven't done anything outside the group yet. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 01:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Jaewon. — revi_msg 01:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Defence Forum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable forum. Excluding the primary links to the website, the only links are to various books that refer to the website itself but no secondary sources discussing the website as a whole. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis (EP)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry, but I not finding any reliable sources about this EP. No chart positions, no commercial performance stats, no reviews, no information about the making of this album, nothing at all! 和DITOR E tails 22:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May even meet WP:A9 --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 14:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree about Speedy Delete A9. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transsexual (EP)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry, but I'm not finding any reliable sources about this EP. No chart positions, no commercial performance stats, no reviews, no information about the making of this album, nothing at all! 和DITOR E tails 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~No need to be sorry for doing your Wikipedia work. Just delete it, because it doesn't look notable.~~ --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DII Band[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The only source that mentions the band appears to be its own webpage. The others, like much of the article and most of the gratuitous quotes, are about other bands. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~In this case we have nothing else but to delete.~~ --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 04:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Code Project[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails website guideline WP:WEB. Unresolved notability since May 2012. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv Maayan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary source showing the reputation of this wrestler.--Sismarinho (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is a list of google results for him in reliable secondary sources for professional wrestling. There are 58 results, but some might be duplicates. starship.paint ~ regal 13:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ~~Um, when I clicked on that, I got "Your search - "Aviv Maayan" site:f4wonline.com OR site:pwtorch.com OR site:slam.canoe.ca OR site ... - did not match any documents."~~ Wait, n/m I get a result with SafeSearch off, and "repeat the search with omitted results included" gets about 60. They mostly look like lists of upcoming matches and match results. Not sure if any of these would qualify as significant coverage. — Gwalla | Talk 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maayan had several good years on the British independent circuit but was unable to achieve wider recognition amongst wrestling fans or promoters, much less the mainstream media. With brief mentions in the wrestling magazines of the time and appearances on a few internet-distributed DVDs, I'm not aware of any substantial coverage of Maayan's career in reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travelan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed in bad faith. Per JamesBWatson's PROD, "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the online references mentions Travelan. The one offline reference is a research paper, in which the abstract does not mention Travelan, and even if the paper does, one research paper which mentions it is not enough to establish notability." Origamite^ⓣⓒ 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I stand by what I said in my PROD, which Origamite has quoted above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. WP generally does not include brand name medicines unless international ly recognised. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROD certainly removed in bad faith, and I replaced it, not realising I shouldn't. Sorry. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find considerable merit in JamesBWatson's and Origamite's (edit sorry I meant Libstar's) arguments: lack of notable sources, plus the rules about branded medicines. In addition, there is already a good article about this subject at Colostrum#Human consumption of bovine colostrum for anyone interested in the subject. The only reason for keeping the article would be for promotional purposes, and this is simply not allowed. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two articles in LifeScientist (1 and 2) are all I could find besides press releases and a passing mention in Herald Sun discussing the parent companies stock price. JTdale ^Talk 12:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was created, so far as I can tell, by someone employed by the product's manufacturer, and later embellished by an admitted company employee. I did my best to WP:AGF by removing promotional content and otherwise making it as WP:NPOV as possible. Continued interference from the company, however, has made the article more trouble to the project than it is worth, IMHO. I might have voted otherwise, even in the face of the obvious promotional overtones, if there were even a shred of objective evidence that the product is effective under real-world conditions, but there simply isn't any. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

也是醉了[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What I really want to know is which WP:CSD criterion this meets. This article is obviously not suitable for an encyclopedia nor does it make any credible claim of significance. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 04:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly delete. There is no CSD criterion for this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think there would be, but in reality the criterion that comes closest to this is A11 as it's a randomly coined Chinese phrase that makes no credible claim of significance. However, to most people this wouldn't be "obvious" enough. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I can find about 25 books that use the phrase, but none that discuss it. It might be suitable for Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. This article is about a Chinese internet slang and nothing else. Cnilep might find use for its literal meaning ("I am also drunk", which is easily commonplace) but no notability would be established for that case. Also Baidu Baike is not RS anyway. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 13:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, entirely inappropriate for WP.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete since we can't speedy it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Wheeler[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low-level minor league baseball manager/coach. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. I don't believe his election to the Kingston Baseball Hall of Fame is of much note, the Hall of Fame seems to be one small-mid level city's attempt to give 'gold watches' to regional persons of note. There are no sources, just external links. Has never played, managed or coached at the major league level. Alex (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Somehow I completely glanced over the fact that he has 1,250+ wins as a manager. Had I seen that, I wouldn't have even done this AfD. Alex (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Non notable minor leaguer and low level minor league manager.Spanneraol (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Change to keep because of sources added by BBny below. Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfect example of how dumb these AfDs have become. In other pending AfDs, Alex and Spanneraol are waging a fierce battle to keep the pages of a bunch of non-notable bullpen catchers, but now they want to delete the page of a guy who played in the minors for six seasons, has managed and coached in the minors for almost 30 years (and has won several league-level "manager of the year" awards), and was part of the Atlanta Braves' major league coaching staff for part of the 2005 season. But, yeah, let's delete this page while keeping a bunch of bullpen catchers. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator Voting to keep this article merely as a response to other votes in other AfDs is not a viable reason to keep this article and the above vote should be discarded immediately. Alex (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of Alex's usual trolling. The second link in my above comment establishes that Wheeler was a major league coach in 2005, which means Wheeler is presumed notable as per BASE/N, which means Alex was wrong to post this AfD, which means this AfD is dead on arrival. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bbny is making an inappropriate comparison between this AfD and those. In all cases, it's about sources. Here, I don't think there are enough for GNG, and he doesn't meet BASE/N. Per MilB.com, "Following his final season in Rome in 2005, Rocket was added to the Braves Major League coaching staff, where he served on the bench through the postseason." Teams routinely do that, and it doesn't count as being a member of a major league staff as per BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be about sources, but that's not what's going on here. None of the bullpen catcher AfDs have more than one decent source; instead, people are claiming those guys are presumed notable by BASE/N under their own made-up definition of what a "coach" is. Meanwhile, where in BASE/N does it say that coaches added to the major league roster in September/October aren't presumed notable per BASE/N? But even if Wheeler isn't presumed notable under BASE/N (and I'd have no problem with that interpretation), it's almost impossible to believe that a guy who played in the minors for six years and then managed and coached in the minors for 30 YEARS doesn't have enough sources out there to pass GNG. Minor league managers get a ton of coverage these days. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major league coaches are notable. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Somehow I completely glanced over the fact that he has 1,250+ wins as a manager. Had I seen that, I wouldn't have even done this AfD. Alex (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As Spartaz says, "appeared in" is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensi Pearl[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In adequately sourced BLP and fails PORNBIO as well. Film sourced from credits and what looks like a press release so that's not counting to notability either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We can talk about the quality of the references, but she has appeared in three notable mainstream films, so I don't understand how one could imagine she fails WP:PORNBIO. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, let's talk about the references. Appeared in is not notability. What are the sources to show that she had staring roles? Bit parts that no one reports on don't count.Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that AVN is not a reliable source for information such as who appeared in what film, I think you're wrong. And by my reading of PORNBIO "starring" is not required - after all that would be a redundant criterion, as an actor who stars in multiple notable films is notable without that guideline. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, after a little digging, this source:[25] describes her role in About Cherry as "starring" and this source:[26] mentions her roles in High School Musical 1 & 2 as well as a brief (one-line) appearance in Read it and Weep. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's starring in the context of a review of the film not mentioning her at all except in a list of cast members? Therichest doesn't look like a reliable source and if your idea of building an encyclopedia is to source material in BLPs from an article entitled 7-disney-girls-who-went-wild then we really are up shit creek. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we should use that as a reference for the article. I'm confused about your objection here: are you disputing whether she actually appeared in the films or not? If not, then AVN is a perfectly good reliable source for non-contentious information of this kind. If so, I can provide further evidence. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the fat she had a bit part but it should be given no weight because there appears to be absolutely zero critical or independant comment of her role in the film. Bit parts absolutrly don't count..... and regarding her 'role' in HSM I'm unable to find her name on the full cast list shown on IMBD. [27], or HSM2 for thsat matter [28]. Do we have any verifiable information on what role she played? Does she actually speak? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the text from PORNBIO actually stares Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media Pleases explain how these bit parts = featured? According to dictionary.com Featured means
1.made a feature or highlight; given prominence: a featured article; a featured actor.
bolding mine Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm pretty sure she had a major role in About Cherry,~~ I'm not sure about her role in About Cherry (I confused her character for another one) although I haven't seen the film (and don't want to.) As for HSM 1&2 and Read it and Weep, I assume she wasn't credited under her porn name, and I don't know how substantial her roles were in the former two. I'll find out. As for the guideline, the term "featured" is definitely not the same thing as "starring" - for example pancakes were featured in a Kevin Costner film, but did not have a starring role. IIRC, for the purposes of WP:PORNBIO it's conventional that anyone with a speaking role is "featured," but non-speaking roles don't count for this purpose. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm not accepting that just speaking makes you featured. You will need to find me a consensus for that if you are going to rely on that argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claimed mainstream roles fall well below the PORNBIO requirements, and all but one aren't even established by the cited sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails PORNBIO.LM2000 (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not really helpful to just say "fails PORNBIO" or to assert that the roles are below PORNBIO requirements - what do you believe PORNBIO requires, and why do you believe the roles fall short of that? As for Wolfowitz's claim that only one role is established by the references - that's just not true. Take a closer look, they are all there. Unfortunately, while I tried to check the depth of the roles I couldn't find any information on that - it's not the sort of thing that is published about any actors; nobody counts how many lines everyone had and makes a table of statistics. Nevertheless she appeared in four mainstream films, and no argument has been advanced concerning how significant such roles have to be, nor has any evidence been provided that they didn't meet that hypothetical standard. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 02:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering square industrial park[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article CSD'd a couple of times. Now includes references but can't find enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Sam Walton (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't verify the reliability of the Arabic sources or some of the other foreign newspapers, but superficially it seems likely that the references already included are sufficient for WP:GNG. I think the current discussion should be closed as no-consensus without prejudice to revisiting this AfD if someone qualified to comment on that recommends it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Iaquinto[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable (WP:BASIC, WP:GNG). Quis separabit? 13:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible claim of notability. Most of article is unsourced WP:OR. Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Borderline but there appears to be enough.

Roberts, Jo (22 October 2004), "Festival Diary", The Age

Reviews a multi-media opera Cosmonaut, which "tells the story of a cosmonaut stranded in space who makes contact with an isolated Australian woman." The reviews has good coverage of Iaquinto. Includes the line "She was internationally recognised for her pioneering contact, and in 1993 was invited to speak at NASA about ham radio and her contact with Mir."

No longer stranded in space from The Age

Only has a little, by the same author as above. Does say "Maggie Iaquinto is internationally recognised as having the first civilian contact with Mir."

"MAGGIE Iaquinto is a passionate woman with the enthusiasm of someone who wants..", Bayside Leader, 1 November 2004

Is about her. "But it wasn't the conversations that secured Maggie's place in the history books -- many ham radio operators around the world had made contact with Mir.

What set Maggie's experience apart was her involvement in a groundbreaking communication between a computer on Earth and a computer on Mir via radio."

That said it should go back to an old version before most of the unsourced content was introduced. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability here. Possibly a sentence in the Mir article would be appropriate--Mevagiss (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough here for notability. I'd support finding a way to work a few sentences into the Mir article. Metamagician3000 (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMUS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This system is just a way of combining integration of the company's digestor with outside products,and amounts to no more than a tradename. Only one of the sources is a secondary source (a regional newspaper), and it talks more about the company than the process. It shouldn't be discussed separates; and, as a rather generic phrase, doesn't even need a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing within the article or any sources in an admittedly cursory search suggests a reason why this particular process is notable beyond the company's own hyperbole. The information in this article is also contained in Himark BioGas, which is a straight-up advert and could as it stands have an AfD of its own. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really nothing new or unique. It's merely an embellishment of biogas by a company for advert purpose. See the definitions, they are almost verbatim statements, and exactly with same meanings. No difference whatsoever. Chhandama (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayce Tingler[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus indicates that bullpen catchers are not coaches, so how about "field coordinators"? Jayce Tingler does not fill one of the conventional coaching roles (bench, third base, first base, pitching, hitting, bullpen et cetera). Fails WP:BASE/N and from what I can tell, WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. He's considered a coach by the Rangers. "Tingler will be on the bench in uniform during the games..." Spanneraol (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major League coach, meets WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Castro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly surprised they let him go. He had a little upside. All I could find were these: [29], [30] Alex (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore material in target article and restore redirect Unscintillating (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except the players on the re-direct target actually play in the Phillies organization, which Castro does no longer. So no actually that would make zero sense.--Yankees10 08:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to fix. You clearly don't know how these pages work.--Yankees10 23:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, Unscintillating. I think the pages need to be fixed, too. Alex (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on what kind of fixing is needed? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Dear Leader Jimmy Wales has said he wants Wikipedia to be the "sum of human knowledge." Deleting viable information goes against that goal. My beef is there are individuals who wish to delete information on active minor league players when they are still with affiliated teams. I don't think that should occur. I'm not sure I agree with starting a list/article for all the retired/former minor leaguers, though. That would be extremely difficult to organize and maintain. How would we sort it? I'm not saying it couldn't be done and if someone can come up with a good way to do it, then I might be persuaded to jump on board. But it would be a massive undertaking. Alex (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 08:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable. There is no need to preserve the information anywhere. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. As a clear hoax, as other articles the editor has created. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divorced Family[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy as hoax was declined. Only reference in article refers to some other show and does not mention this one. This show does not exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Entire page is an extract of See Dad Run with minor changes in details and cite titles. Production details in info box exact copy. IMDb lists this show http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4133474/ but uses this article on Wikipedia as support for it being on IMDb. See official site info on IMDb page which lists http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=328930 as the official show site that contains only a twitter message from an unverified twitter account and this article as existence support. Nickelodeon knows nothing about this show per its web page and a search on its show site. This show is a hoax created using circular support on multiple web pages, this article being a major basis for that circular support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Buschmann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable minor league baseball player. Previous AFD closed as merge but he is no longer in the Oakland system and is a free agent so merge is no longer possible. Journeyman AAAA player. Spanneraol (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for the sake of factuality: AAAA (quadruple A) refers to a player who bounces back and forth between the minors and majors, or someone who gets called up every once in a while but spends most of his time in the minors, or someone who has enormous success in the minors, but cannot find such success in the majors (like Brandon Wood). Buschmann is just a journeyman Triple-A player as he never spent any time in the big leagues. Alex (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep On the back of this fairly substantial feature story: [31], but he also has [32], [33], [34], three minor league All-Star selections and four Player of the Week honors going for him. Trivial as it is, he also pitched in a perfect game while in college [35]. Alex (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...The third one is routine. What do you not get about this? Also, what is your proof that the fourth one is a reliable source?--Yankees10 04:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also not convinced these Scout.com articles you keep finding should be used. They look like blogs to me.--Yankees10 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scout.com articles have been cited and sourced previously without a problem. Alex (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used Scout.com for a baseball bio source, but WP:CFB and WP:CBB routinely disregard Scout.com (and other recruiting service) materials for purposes of determining notability in AfD discussions. Frankly, that makes a lot of sense when Scout.com and Rivals.com have short bios for virtually every college recruit in the country, they cease to be viable measures of notability for college athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fails GNG.--Yankees10 04:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the material in the target article and restore the redirect Just mark the material in the target article as a former member. Unscintillating (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how its done.--Yankees10 08:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the nom is systematically removing material from target articles and then un-redirecting and bringing the topic to AfD?. Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is players added and removed from these pages all the time. Please don't bother voting if you do not understand how these pages work.--Yankees10 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the essay WP:Pocket consensus, which says, "...if pocket consensus is challenged, the broader or majority view will carry greater weight than mere passage of time." WP:PRESERVE is a policy. It says, among many other things,

“

Instead of removing text, consider:

Moving the information to another existing article or splitting the information to a new article

”

Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these guys should never have been on those pages to begin with. Spanneraol (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: The purpose of articles such as Oakland Athletics minor league players is to list current members. There is no benefit to listing former members. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buschmann's playing career does not establish notability per WP:BASE/N and he hasn't received enough independent coverage to pass GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. We seem to have reached consensus that the sources present in the article do not create notability for its subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Supply[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another Articles for Creation "special". This was previously deleted (in 2013) for lack of notability after it was created by an editor with an openly declared conflict of interest featuring (almost exclusively) local coverage from the area in which the company is located. The new references aren't much better - passing mentions of specific employees, quotes from other employees and political press releases that mention that particular employees have been appointed to things. None of those allow the company to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. We didn't have that last time and we don't have that now. Those that constitute significant coverage are from local newspapers, those from media further away could not be considered significant coverage. Combining the two doesn't get us much closer to notability than we were a year ago. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read through the previous deletion discussion for a Logic Supply article, I was able to glean a number of important takeaways (thanks to those who participated in that discussion). In response, I have added additional information and references found on reputable websites. I have also included mention of Logic Supply's role in supporting the ongoing Maker Movement with their Inspire.logicsupply.com BeagleBone Black resource website which is now part of the "Learn" navigation on the BeagleBone.org webiste. In response to the remaining local references I understand that local publications, regardless of how reputable, often don't carry a significant amount of weight, however they are only intended to substantiate the history and background of the company. The other, non-Vermont-based references meanwhile do, in my opinion, aid in supporting notability. In some cases, the newly added references are product reviews, and while I understand that product reviews do not implicitly enhance notability, there did seem to be an opinion in the previous deletion discussion that they are relevant in demonstrating the company's standing in its industry, especially when published by well-respected publications. I welcome other opinions about the article's merritt and suggestions about how it might be improved. Mobydickulous (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really just more of the same. There might have been such an opinion but it wasn't the prevailing consensus and the article was deleted anyway. We need significant coverage of the company in multiple reliable sources. Beyond substantiating notability, you need to provide information with which a properly sourced (verified) article can be written. Short product reviews tell us nothing about the company and provide no information with which we can build an article (beyond a list of confirmed products). St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not encyclopedic--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources appear valid. K7L (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that the links aren't broken? Sure. But in what way are they reliable sources giving the subject significant coverage? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Stalwart indicated, there simply isn't sufficient referencing to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of notability at the previous AfD remains the case DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of notability when it was deleted in 2013 is still present. Frmorrison (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I reviewed the references, I started to get excited when I saw the article in Forbes. Then, I read the article. It's not about Logic Supply, it's about women who hold leadership positions in businesses, and Logic Supply was just used as an example. That doesn't speak to notability. Then I looked at the two references in Tom's Hardware. Just perfunctory directory listings. I'm afraid this doesn't pass WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to BtoB (band). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seo Eunkwang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the AfD here, these people seem to be only notable for being members of the band BtoB. I recommend a redirect to BtoB. Natg 19 (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the below related pages because they are also only notable for being a member of the band:

Redirect - Agree with User:Natg 19. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 19:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with above. — revi_msg 06:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Money for Lunch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing issues: All sources are PR / primary / affiliate (mostly primary radio interviews). Zero secondary independent WP:RS, fails WP:GNG . (created and edited by several COI / allegation of paid writing blocked sock/meat Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amyxcell Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez) Widefox; talk 12:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC) (after double checking all sources) Widefox; talk 09:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of who created it, I don't see how this is notable, as we don't have articles about every radio program that ever aired: Noyster (talk), 15:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG - even the sockpuppets have found no significant coverage, and I couldn't either. It was a local radio show, and wasn't successful enough to keep its own radio slot so is now online. AdventurousMe (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If something is notable enough someone will come along and make an article on it for free. Like AM said above, even the socks can't find the coverage.--Adam in MO Talk 03:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete socky article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Corbin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial coverage in any third-party sources, does not meet WP:BIO WP:GNG, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who? Insignificant name on extended basic cable television shows that very few have seen or written about. — Wylie pedia 04:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as it pains me as a TechTV fan, the subject's notability hasn't really kept up with the times and has declined as TechTV gets into the 'thin memories' section that America's Talking and Sportschannel are now in. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep and the concerns regarding sourcing have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulla Reddy Sweets[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non notable shop. No significant third party coverage at all. Totally unsourced. Doesn't pass our general notability threshold. T I can also see the use of peacock terms in the lead but that can fixed. Here the problem is notability. Jim Carter 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 20:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is very old and popular in the state of Andhra Pradesh. we may not get web sources for everything. Kindly don't delete. • Varma

@Varmapak: you will need to use the references in the article and put verifiable content that will help towards establishing notability of the subject. --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably it is notable. I have added four online reference on the article talk page, @Varmapak: can you evaluate those references and, if suitable, use for the article? --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: The provided sources are not inline. Jim Carter 12:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Cartar: yes Jim, I deliberately left them on talk page and requested Varmapak to evaluate their merit and use in the article. S/he has more than 1k edits so I am assuming s/he is aware of referencing. The logo says since 1948 and I could find several stray mention in newspapers of which I gave four direct mentions in national dailies. It may be notable. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Cartar: Pulla Reddy Sweets is notable, you can also find same article in Telugu Language was created in the year 2007.- varma (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AmritasyaPutra found splendid sources! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aadarsh Mishra[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined speedy deletion, because it seemed to me that there was an assertion of notability and a cited source. However, that doesn't mean this is actually a notable person. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy delete. Subject is a non-notable student (he has, for example, won no prizes). Journal publications are claimed, but the International Journal for Mechanical and Production Engineering and the International Journal for Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research appear not to exist. The Journal of Metallurgy and Material Science exists, but is a very obscure Indian journal, and there is no evidence of the subject publishing in it. The cited papers "Thin Films of Tin Sulphide for Use in Solar Cell Devices," "Dry Sliding of Ti-6Al-4V Alloys," and "Dry Sliding Wear Behaviour of Titanium Carbide with Copper Composites" cannot be found in Google Scholar. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect a hoax. In addition, the article text is a copyvio. -- 120.23.74.123 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy deletion, because it seemed to me that there was an assertion of notability and a cited source.Aadarsh Mishra is a prominent researcher in the field of material science. His research papers are available on the GOOGLE SCHOLAR:

<http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=aadarsh+mishra&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5>

Besides that, his cover story has been published in 'The New Indian Express':

<http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/A-Thirst-for-Answers/2014/07/14/article2325732.ece> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.119 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 November 2014

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, I see the papers now (possibly it was a spelling issue), and I see the International Journal for Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research at ijmerr.com. However, I note that none of the papers has a single citation, and IJMERR does not appear to be a legitimate journal. It doesn't appear on standard lists, and it seems they'll publish anyone who pays the fee. I don't think publishing there contributes to notability. -- 120.23.108.6 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IJMERR is a very reputed journal with Impact factor 1.009 and ICV rating 5.55. It is indexed in University of Melbourne, Australia and Google scholar. Since the papers are hardly 2-3 months older, how can you conclude about the citation? It takes a lot of time to cite a paper. Aadarsh Mishra has also been indexed in The New Indian express for his research- it means that they have already trusted his research and found it to be correct- The new Indian express is one of the prominent newspapers of India. Besides that Aadarsh has been associated with prominent research centre- IISc, Bangalore.

<http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/A-Thirst-for-Answers/2014/07/14/article2325732.ece>

Comment. IJMERR is not a "very reputed journal." It appears on no lists I've seen, and the only evidence about impact factor is self-reported, which is hardly reliable. Browsing with Google Scholar, none of the papers in IJMERR seem to be cited. Also, a newspaper report is not endorsement of research quality, nor does a single newspaper report provide notability. And, per WP:NOTINHERITED, being "associated with IISc" is irrelevant. -- 120.23.108.6 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, which requires impact (for instance in the form of citations), not just publication. Google scholar shows 19 papers with zero citations to any of them, the opposite of impact. And, not that it matters for this decision, but although IJMERR doesn't seem to be included on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers, its web site has red flags on it that make me suspect it is not a respectable journal (notably, promising an acceptance decision within a week of submission; also, supposed editor in chief doesn't mention the journal anywhere on his academic web site). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt very much that The New Indian Express has engineers on its staff who do peer review. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Papers don't make someone notable on their own. The one story on him seems to have been written by an intern at the newspaper.http://www.gohachi.com/s/kheya+chattopadhyay+xaverian+theatrical+society] This isn't enough to establish notability by our criteria. Dougweller (talk)

Note: both the unsigned comments above were posted from 131.251.254.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and there's also one higher up from 131.251.254.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These belong to the same small range as 131.251.252.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 131.251.254.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), IPs which I blocked a few hours ago for their deletion of most of this discussion, see the page history. Obviously this is all the same disruptive individual. In other words, the two comments immediately above constitute block evasion. You're not allowed to edit when you're blocked, you know, and you were blocked for good reason. I've blocked the 131.251.252.0/22 range now. If the individual jumps somewhere else, I'll just as soon semiprotect the discussion (with apologies to 120.23.xx). And if anybody wants to tidy the page by deleting all 131.251.xx comments, I've no objection. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

STRONG DELETE This is the kind of PR Fakery (IPs g/locate to U/Cardiff) which gives England a bad name. 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete Anyone whose strongest claim to fame is being a "student in x field" does not pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 02:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E Reece[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rapper who has never charted. Aside from rapping, he has made two very small screen appearances, one of which proves a conflict of interest (and the COI refers to the article creator, who got indeffed for copyvios years ago, so notifying her about this discussion seems rather pointless). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. w/o prejudice to a redirect or a merge to a character list if one ever exists, the discussion didn't name one, and I couldn't find one. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Campanelli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for having no sources and being written in-universe for five years now. Notability concerns and lack of sources exist to expand on this character. Gloss 01:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This character is the subject of academic works such as this one. We should work to clean up articles like this instead of deleting them. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots she was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only notable within the show. If nobody has bothered to or been able to find sources for the 5 years it's been tagged, I doubt they'll do it now. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a major character. If a suitable character list exists, then some of this article's material might be merged into such a list. PK T(alk) 19:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Lagos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per what wiki is not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the discussion to continue. I will say that the list is greatly improved from the original incarnation and it shows a lot of time and effort being put to make it within our guidelines. My concerns are similar to User:Rhododendrites about deleting when the article has been drastically improved, that being said I think that the vastness of the sources itself is actually something that will deter some editors from actually checking the references. I say assume good faith but verify lol, I think that it is definitely on the edge of keeping but I'd prefer getting more input from the community because we all we check different references. Italso should be mentioned usually I feel lists like this are kind of spammy but that's just my personal opinion and obviously not a consensus on wiki. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the Wikipedia administrator in charge of this list's nomination for deletion: The list: List of restaurants in Lagos was created while editing via a poor internet access. As a result, the list is still in the process of creation and will be improved as soon as possible. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Not one single notable entry on this list either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The article is a business directory. Lugnuts is correct about the lack of notable entries. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep This list was not intended to be a directory. I have cited sources where feasible and subsequent unsourced entries will be removed as I and other editors contribute continuosly. At the time of writing this statement, and on close scrutiny, the list currently has some notable entries. Any piece of advice on improving the list is welcome. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR indeed. The only notable listings appear to be individual locations of large restaurant chains. Either the list would be of notable items (for which there do not seem to be enough, unfortunately) or it would be a directory (whether or not it's sourced). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) See comments below. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Deleting may not be the answer here, but this article needs an overhaul in order to not be a directory. If you look at other articles of the type "list of restaurants in (city)" you'll notice all the restaurants listed are notable and almost all have their own articles. This list reads like a travel guide. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. At the risk of sounding silly, do we really want to open the door for List of pet stores in Topeka or List of hotels in San Diego as valid encyclopedic topics? Carrite (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All entries on the list now have sources. Anything else to make it less of a directory? Eruditescholar (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Verification of their existence doesn't change it being a directory. The idea is that an encyclopedia should be selective in what it covers rather than admit lists of everything that exists. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Let's not overstate. Providing sources does help towards establishing the notability of these restaurants, so that it can become what it ought to be - a list of notable restaurants in Lagos, analogous to List of restaurants in New York City and many similar lists. Of course not all the restaurants listed may be notable, but that's more a reason to remove them from the list than to delete the whole list. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: - Adding sources does help establish notability, but as of now very few meet that threshold outside of chains (which, keeping with precedent in lists of restaurants in other cities, shouldn't be listed unless the company is headquartered there). That said, the list has come a long way since I last looked at it thanks to Eruditescholar's work to it. I don't know that there's enough out there to support this list, but I'm no longer comfortable !voting delete about an article that looks so different from it did when it was nominated. I struck my vote and will abstain hoping the improvements will continue. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - (delete vote struck above) More sources added, several unsourced or primary sourced removed, and I know there are more out there because I stopped while I still had tabs open. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- @Hell in a Bucket: I drew your attention to your nomination of this list for deletion because it has been greatly improved since Rhododendrites assisted me with editing. We have made significant improvements to the list. Issues warranting nomination for deletion has been addressed. As a result, the list is no longer a directory and I see no rationale in continuing this discussion. Hence, a request for consensus. As a Wikipedia deletionist, it might be easy to insist on the continuation of this discussion on the grounds of reliability, confirmation of sources or other reasons. I have to reiterate the fact that the current list is very much different from how it looked like when it was nominated. At the time of nomination, the creation occurred in the midst of an unexpected and interrupted internet connection (which rarely happens to me). Afterwards, it took some time for me to rectify this problem and access the high speed internet to continue the edits. Yes, there have been many sources added, mostly secondary ones and I'm confident that over 90%, if not all, are reliable. Let's be realistic, how long does it take to confirm the reliability of citations? I am very welcome to other editor's contributions to this discussion. As an experienced editor with several inputs to the Wikipedia community, I want to assume you have good intentions, other wise, if this discussion must continue, then it is beginning to look like your primary goal is to ensure that this list is deleted from Wikipedia. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been very clear on why the discussion should continue, I appreciate that you have put in a lot of hard work on this list and I am a deletionist but I think that this list needs more scrutiny. I'm sorry if that means you will assume less good faith based on my opinion that it is still worth a discussion. I think it's on the edge of being acceptable, merely having loads of sources doesn't automatically end a discussion the substance and depth of those coverages should be detailed. I could source damn near every resturaunt anywhere and make a list. I find lists that are only lists without accompanying articles somewhat spammy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Nominator has requested additional discussion due to article improvement during this process. If even nominator is vacillating about deletion, it's reasonable to offer this process another seven days. BusterD (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (replaced below). I think a list of restaurants that are individually notable and have their own articles would be fine. But as it stands it's effectively just a trade directory, and that's something that Wikipedia isn't. Neatsfoot (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a concern that could be fixed by editing, changing the inclusion criteria, etc. Or are you saying none of those sourced items are sourced to the extent they could be considered notable? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm suggesting that to get in any list article, a restaurant (or anything else) should have an article written about it first that demonstrates its notability (and that's notability for the specific restaurant itself in this case, not the chain) - there are plenty of lists of notable thing around here that work like that. Just adding all the sources you can find into a list like this leaves us with the silly situation where each entry has 5, 6, 7 or more sources and the references section is bigger than the list - and it's still not clear if each entry passes the notability criteria. (A lot of references currently used are just "dining out" directories, reviews, etc and really only demonstrate the existence of the restaurant and not notability - I looked at one that has nine sources, and they're all of that type). The alternative of allowing lists of anything that happen to fit in any arbitrary set is as Carrite suggests above - "List of chiropodists in Ouagadougou", "List of chicken sexers in Somerset"... the list of possible pointless lists is endless. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No individual restaurants have articles, only three chains. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Neatsfoot: and @Clarityfiend:, It's okay to limit the list to those with articles as some of the restaurants are worthy of articles. As a compromise, I would suggest a tentative keep in order to give room for other articles on the list. I think this is better than deleting the whole list instantly. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at about half a dozen entries in detail and I honestly don't think any of them would satisfy the notability criteria - just being reviewed and/or included in lists of places to eat is very unlikely to be enough, in my opinion. I'd suggest a better alternative to deletion would be to move the article to your user space and then you can start writing some individual articles - once you have several that are acceptable (perhaps tested by AFD discussion if anyone thinks they're doubtful), then you can start adding them to a new list article. How would that sound? Neatsfoot (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Neatsfoot: A mere observation of the restaurants with citations on the list is not enough to give a conclusive information regarding their notability criteria because there are still many more sources I haven't cited on the list. You will observe that I haven't removed the construction tag since the list was tagged AfD. Thanks for your observation. Although, a tentative keep is still my preference, moving the page to my user space will be my last resort. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with what you say about references, and that's a problem with the list - you really can't use 10, 20, 30 or whatever per entry without it looking extremely silly. When you have sufficient sources to demonstrate notability, the place for them is an article and not a list entry. My preference for moving the full list to userspace is because we just should not ever have pages in article space that do not conform to our minimum requirements - to readers, every article should be in good-enough condition for article space before it gets there. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - (PS: No need to ping me - I'm watching this page. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. It's difficult to understand users who complain that there are too many citations for establishments that don't have there own articles. This list is a good place to start for developing such articles. The assertion that having too many citations makes the list look spammy is not a policy-based objection. Moreover, with even the nominator vacillating about whether the list should be deleted, I think we need to see a very compelling argument before doing so. My feeling is that we ought to be thankful to Eruditescholar for producing high quality information about Nigerian establishments, which often don't have articles because non-Western topics are not well-represented. We ought to encourage people to write about them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious comment User:Sammy1339 as I have written almost 90 articles of my own and unless someone since this morning has talked about the number sources is me. I wouldn't even classify it as not ok I just want people to scrutinize the sources and the sheer number of those make it hard to do by anyone editor. I'd also reccomend reading WP:WTAF, it's only a guideline and not policy but it can help. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All entries without articles have been removed from the list. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks good now - good luck with getting more entries on the list! Neatsfoot (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sammy1339 78.144.245.50 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per changes to the article that began on 10 November 2014 (diff), in which it's now comprised of all blue links, it qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Restaurants in Lagos and is a useful navigation aid per WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to agritourism. The nominator was banned as a sock puppet, but many users have voted so this is not valid grounds for a speedy keep. Even discounting the nominator's vote, there is a clear consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agri-entertainment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and promotional. My merge proposal of May 2014 did not prosper. Let's discuss deleting this, as I can't find enough reliable sources for notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agritourism. The terms are used sometimes interchangeably and sometimes with minor distinction. There are sources on agri-tainment not yet included at agritourism. By the way, there was no merge-from template there; I have just added one. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agritourism. I agree—if there's a distinction between these two topics, it's evidently only a slight one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agritourism. As was said before, the terms are only slightly different if at all. Here are two Extension articles on the topic: this one from Penn State that calls it "Agritainment", and one from University of Maryland calling it "Agri-tourism". They use two different terms to describe the same activities. Creigpat (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 02:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elton Dharry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer - does not meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. There is an IBF title in the future apparently but this is not referenced and in any case would make this WP:TOOSOON. The references in the article are just titles with no indication where they are from. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think you could argue he technically meets WP:NBOX with his Caribbean title, but I'm having a hard time voting to keep this article. He defended his title against a fighter with a 2-2 record which tells me it's not much of a title (the WBC hands them out like candy). His Guyanaese title was won against a fighter who'd won 5 of his 20 fights. Added to the lack of coverage to meet WP:GNG, this determined my vote. Additional info could change my mind.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. As a hoax §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Brager[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. None of the references in the article that purport to support info in the article have any mention of this person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly, could even be a hoax. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy delete as a hoax. The references are about other people not her. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll let the community sort this out. I deleted it as a hoax, but then I found an Alexandra Brager (note the different spelling of the first name) and she has a page at IMDb, and there is a video game called Pair of Kings. Now it's still not clear to me how accurate any of this is, but I can't call it a hoax, so I restored it and removed the tag. (There's a whole bunch of related articles all created by the same user.)--Bbb23 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the hoax has got to IMDb as well. I found the actual episode on NETFLIX that Alexandra Brager was purported to be in per IMDb page on show, watched the end credits and nobody with that name was listed in the credits. Threshold to put stuff on IMDb is pretty low. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on other information at IMDb related to the articles created by the same user, I gave serious thought to everything there being false (except the Pair of Kings's existence). The problem is that when the alleged hoax is this elaborate, I'm unwilling to speedy delete it. I'm not saying, of course, it's not a hoax. At the end of the day, some consideration should be given to the potentially disruptive behavior of the creator as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to let the AfD run to conclusion so have better justification for speedy in future when this article gets re-created. I have reported what I found to IMDb as likely hoaxes. Looks like this person is running an basic web hoax about being an actress and creating circular support on different web pages to support claims. I expect that the wiki editor adding to this is either her or a friend. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Source of the page is Buddy Handleson. Page is just slightly modified copy using the same references with minor changes to cites replacing Handleson's name with Brager's name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.